34

INTRODUCTION'.

As it was necessary to reduce the lists to the standard number for each jury*the Commission charged itself with this duty. Those persons who had beenrecommended as jurors, but who from the small numbers of the jury were notplaced on it, might, on the application of a jury, be called in on special occasionsto give aid, under the title of associates, but without a vote,and Foreign The no minat ion of the foreign jurors was conducted on a somewhat different

jurors. principle. The Foreign Commissioners submitted, that a fuller representation of

the foreigners of all nations in the body which it was proposed to constitute forthe purpose of confirming the award of individual juries would be secured, byreferring the awards for confirmation to a general meeting of the juries of alliedsubjects, according to the groupings already spoken o£ And the Commissionersassented to this modification. The selection of jurors for each foreign countrywas of course left to that country; persons of skilled knowledge being chosen torepresent those classes of objects in which the country was a considerableexhibitor. It was recommended that in cases where the Central Commission wastoo remote to obtain the nomination of the jurors in sufficient time, the ForeignCommissioners should put themselves into communication with the diplomaticrepresentatives of their respective countries in London . The number of jurorsallotted to each foreign country by the Commissioners, upon the suggestion ofthe Foreign Commissioners, was as follows:—Austria, 15; Zollverein , compre-hending Bavaria, Prussia, Saxony, Wurtemburg, &c., 19 ; Belgium , 11 ;North Germany, comprehending Bremen, Hamburgh, and Hanover, 3; Den-mark, 1; France, 32; Greece, 1; Holland, 2; Portugal, 2; Russia, 6; Italy ,comprehending Sardinia and Tuscany, 6; Spain, 3; Sweden and Norway , 1;Switzerland, 4; Turkey, 3; United States, 21; Egypt , 2.

If exhibitors accepted the office of jurors, they ceased to be competitors forprizes in the class to which they were appointed, and these could not be awardedeither to them individually, or to the firms in which they might be partners.Juries were at liberty to take evidence when a majority of the jury deemedit advisable, and to name the persons to be consulted. Jurors of another classmight also be called in aid by a jury, when a knowledge involved in that classwas required. Juries were empowered to act in matters of detail by sub-com-* mittees, but no award could be made except by the majority of the jury. Before

a jury could finally make its awards, it was necessary they should have beensubmitted to a meeting of the juries of allied subjects, as indicated in the groups.These meetings of allied juries had power to confirm the award of the juries,and to investigate any disputed decisions. Before, however, the awards werepublished, it was requisite they should have been submitted to a Council, con-sisting of the chairmen of the juries, in order to secure uniformity of action,and a compliance with the regulations originally laid down by that body. Theawards of a jury, when reported by the Council of Chairmen as being made inconformity to the rules, were final. The juries were aided in the generaltransaction of the business by a person named by the Royal Commissioners, whohimself, or by a deputy approved of by the Commission, was present at theirdeliberations, for the purpose of explaining the rules of the Commission. Thisnominee of the Commission, who was Dr. Lyon Playfair , did not have a vote inany of the juries, or at all interfere m the adjudication of awards.